Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 Religio 24-2016-1 9
2 Religio 24-2016-1 9
2 Religio 24-2016-1 9
net/publication/309404474
The origins of the roman cult of mithras in the light of new evidence and
interpretations: The current state of affairs
CITATIONS READS
10 1,045
1 author:
Aleš Chalupa
Masaryk University
25 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Aleš Chalupa on 30 March 2021.
The origins of the Roman cult of Mithras1 and the historical circum-
stances of its formation remain a long-standing and still unresolved prob-
* The preparation of this article was supported by a grant from the Dean of the Faculty
of Arts, Masaryk University, “The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras in the Light
of New Evidence and Interpretations” (MUNI/21/CHA/2015). I would like to thank
two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions to the first version of this
article. Special thanks go to David Mac Gillavry for his careful proofreading and lan-
guage corrections and to Adam Mertel for the preparation of the map. – Abbreviations
used: AE = L’Année Épigraphique, Paris: Presses universitaires de France 1888- ; AEA
= Annona Epigraphica Austriaca, 1979- [published as a supplement of the journals
Tyche a Römische Österreich]; ANRW = Hildegard Temporini – Wolfgang Haase
(eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin – New York: Walter de
Gruyter 1974- ; CIG = August Böckh et al. (eds.), Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum
I-IV, Berlin: Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1828-1877; CIL =
Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum; CIMRM = Maarten J. Vermaseren (ed.), Corpus in
scriptionum et monumentorum religionis Mithriacae I-II, Den Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
1956-1960; EDCS = Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss/Slaby, <http://www.manfred-
clauss.de/>; ÉPRO = Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire ro-
main; IGRPP = René Cagnat et al. (eds.), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas per
tinentes I-IV, Paris: Ernest Leroux 1906-1927; IGUR = Lino Moretti (ed.), Inscriptiones
Graecae Urbis Romae I-IV, Roma: Instituto italiano per la Storia antica 1968-1990;
ILBulg = Boris Gerov, Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae, Sofia: In Aedibus
Universitatum “Kliment Ohridski” 1989; IGLNovae = Jerzy Kolendo – Violeta
Božilova (eds.), Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Mésie inférieure),
Bordeaux: Ausonius 1997; ILS = Hermann Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae selectae
I-III, Berlin: Berolini apud Weidmannos 1892-1916; HD = Epigraphic Database
Heidelberg, <http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/home>; PLINovae = Leszek
Mrozewicz, Paleography of Latin Inscriptions from Novae (Lower Moesia), Poznań:
Publishing House of the Poznań Society for the Advancement of the Arts and Sciences
2010; RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann
1950- ; RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
Stuttgart: Metzler 1893-1980; RGRW = Religions in the Graeco-Roman World;
TMMM = Franz Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra
I-II, Bruxelles: H. Lamertin 1896-1899.
1 I consider this term less misleading and more neutral than other variants such as
“Mithraism” or “the Mysteries of Mithras”. Mithraism, as a modern neologism, implies
the structural and conceptual unity of a large variety of evidence which might have, in
66 Aleš Chalupa
fact, represented different aspects of the worship offered to the god Mithras in the
Roman Empire. The term Mysteries of Mithras, although attested in ancient sources –
but surprisingly solely of Christian or neo-Platonic origin (cf. Richard L. Gordon,
“Mithras (Mithraskult)”, RAC 24, 2012, 964-1009: 980-981) – is also problematic
since it disproportionately emphasizes only one of many multifarious aspects of the
Roman cult of Mithras.
2 By identifying these sources as “mute” I am making an argument that the particular
meaning these objects had for individual worshippers of Mithras is usually not self-
evident but must be reconstructed by scholars with reference to a certain framework of
interpretation which is external to these objects. At the same time, there is usually a
plurality of possible frameworks of interpretation – cultural and social contexts – and
the choosing of each of them will lead to a specific interpretation and attribution of a
distinctive meaning.
3 Roger Beck, “The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis”, Journal
of Roman Studies 88, 1998, 115-128.
4 This pertains especially to the first of the two mithraea discovered in the vicinity of the
small town of Dülük in modern Turkey. The German excavators of this archaeological
site originally proposed a surprisingly early date for this mithraeum, see p. 80 below.
67 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
The quest for the origins of the Roman cult of Mithras is constantly
obstructed by one crucial difficulty: the mutual inconsistency of literary
and archaeological sources which are telling very different and seemingly
irreconcilable “stories”.5 Graeco-Roman literary sources, which take no-
tice of the existence of the Roman cult of Mithras, are in many regards
scanty and vague, none of them, however, openly contests the Persian
provenance of the cult. The only extant text which deals explicitly with the
origins of the Roman cult of Mithras as “Mithraic mysteries” ascribes its
foundation to Zarathustra, the Persian prophet par excellence. The Greek
neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre describes the act as follows:6
Zoroaster, as Euboulos tells us, was the first to dedicate a natural cave in the nearby
mountains of Persia, a cave surrounded by flowers and furnished with springs, in
honour of Mithras, the maker and father of all. The cave was for him an image of the
cosmos which Mithras created … After Zoroaster it became the custom among others
to perform ceremonies of initiation in caverns and caves, either natural or artificial.
The historicity of this claim is doubtful in the least, but this passage, if
nothing else, at least attests the possibility that a similar aetiological nar-
rative might have circulated among the worshippers of Mithras in the
Roman Empire. A foundation story of this kind could provide the cult with
much needed legitimacy by claiming the inheritance of ancient wisdom
from a religious tradition which commanded, at least in some circles of the
Roman society, respect and admiration.7 The Persian extraction of the
5 Cf. Christian Witschel, “Die Ursprünge des Mithras-Kults: Orientalischer Gott oder
westliche Neu-schöpfung?”, in: Claus Hattler (ed.), Imperium der Götter: Isis, Mithras,
Christus: Kulte und Religionen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart: Theiss 2013, 201-210:
205-209.
6 Porphyry of Tyre, De antro nympharum 6. Quoted according to English translation in
Mary Beard – John North – Simon Price, Religions of Rome II: A Sourcebook,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998, 90-91.
7 See Richard L. Gordon, “Authority, Salvation and Mystery in the Mysteries of Mithra”,
in: Janet Huskinson – Mary Beard – Joyce Reynolds (eds.), Image and Mystery in the
Roman World: Three Papers Given in Memory of Jocelyn Toynbee, Cambridge: Alan
Sutton 1988, 45-80: 47. For more detailed information about the attitudes of the Greeks
and Romans toward the great and ancient cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean, see
Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenisation, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1975; Roger Beck, “Thus Spake not Zarathuštra:
Zoroastrian Pseudepigrapha of the Greco-Roman World”, in: Mary Boyce – Frantz
Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism III: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and
Roman Rule, Leiden: E. J. Brill 1991, 491-565; Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi:
Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, (RGRW 133), Leiden: E. J. Brill 1997.
68 Aleš Chalupa
8 E.g. Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum V,1-2; John the Lydian, De
mensibus IV,30; Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride 46 (369d-e); Origen, Contra Celsum
VI,22, etc.
9 Franz Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs au mystères de Mithra II,
Bruxelles: H. Lamertin 1896. This opus magnum still remains a “must-read” source,
although its function of a standard referential corpus of Mithraic evidence was super-
seded by Maarten J. Vermaseren, Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis
Mithriacae I-II, Den Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1956-1960. Vermaseren’s corpus, how-
ever, in contrast to Cumont’s TMMM II, does not include literary sources.
10 Franz Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs au mystères de Mithra I, Bruxelles:
H. Lamertin 1899; an abridged version of this volume is Franz Cumont, Les mystères
de Mithra, Bruxelles: H. Lamertin 31913.
11 F. Cumont, Les mystères de Mithra…, 31-84. Cumont saw the Roman army as the
main propagator of the Mithras cult in the Roman Empire (ibid., 39).
12 Ibid., 24-27.
69 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
faith of ancient Iran, from which it took its origin. Above this Mazdean substratum
was deposited in Babylon a thick sediment of Semitic doctrines, and afterwards the
local beliefs of Asia Minor added to it their alluvial deposits. Finally, a luxuriant
vegetation of Hellenic ideas burst out from this fertile soil and partly concealed from
view its true original nature.13
origin of the Roman cult of Mithras was expressed by the Swedish orien-
talist Stig Wikander.18 Wikander demonstrated that many conclusions re-
garding the beginnings of the cult and endorsed by Cumont and his follow-
ers were plainly arbitrary and rejected the view seeing the direct and
uncomplicated descent of the Roman cult of Mithras from a Persian pre-
decessor as completely unfounded.19 At the time, however, his isolated
voice was not strong enough to disrupt the strength of the Cumontian
synthesis, mainly because the alternative scenario of the cult’s origins,
which situated the cult’s formation on the Balkan Peninsula,20 was also
historically implausible. Nevertheless, small inconsistencies in Cumont’s
seemingly monolithic interpretation of the Roman cult of Mithras began
slowly to accumulate and this trend culminated in the year 1971 at the first
international congress of Mithraic studies in Manchester. None of a series
of papers, critical of the great Belgian scholar, was more decisive than the
one presented by Richard L. Gordon, who, from the retrospective point of
view, definitively demolished the magnificent edifice of Cumontian views
on the Roman cult of Mithras.21 In his paper, Gordon systematically re-
futed many of the conclusions made by Cumont, including the assumption
of an unbroken chain connecting the Roman cult of Mithras with a Persian
religious tradition, which he considered unfounded and based almost
solely on circular reasoning.22 In Gordon’s opinion, it was methodologi-
18 Stig Wikander, “Études sur les mystères de Mithra I: Introduction”, in: Vetenskaps
societen i Lund: Årsbok 1950, Lund: H. Ohlssons 1951, 5-46.
19 Ibid., 16-17, 21-22.
20 Ibid., 41-46.
21 Richard L. Gordon, “Franz Cumont and the Doctrine of Mithraism”, in: John Hinnells
(ed.), Mithraic Studies I, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1975, 215-248. In
addition to Gordon’s paper, others with far-reaching consequences include e.g. Carsten
Colpe, “Mithra-Verehrung, Mithras-Kult und die Existenz iranischer Mysterien”, in:
John Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies II, Manchester: Manchester University Press
1975, 378-405; John Hinnells, “Reflections on the Bull-Slaying Scene”, in: John
Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies II, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1975,
290-312.
22 R. L. Gordon, “Franz Cumont…”, 221. A striking example of Cumont’s circular rea-
soning is his treatment of a lion-headed being which the Belgian scholar saw as a
Mithraic representation of Zurvan, the Persian god of eternal time, see F. Cumont, Les
mystères de Mithra…, 106-110. Gordon (“Franz Cumont…”, 221-224) persuasively
proved that nothing in the iconography of this being and its attributes make this iden-
tification absolutely certain. Cumont’s persuasion is thus based, to a great extant, on
his previous, but never specifically confirmed, assumption that in the case of the
Roman cult of Mithras we really deal with a continuation of an authentic Persian reli-
gious cult. This assumption is subsequently used as a proof for Cumont’s identification
of a lion-headed being with the Persian deity of Zurvan. In reality, we know neither the
name given to this being by worshippers of Mithras (evidence speaks rather for the
name of Arimanius) nor the role it played within the cult. The existence of strong ties
between the Roman cult of Mithras and an authentic Persian predecessor is, at least in
71 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
28 The process of the gradual formation of a new religious tradition building on elements
from various previously existing traditions may potentially be described by the concept
of “cultural hybridity”, which is slowly replacing the more prevalent, but also more
problematic, concept of “syncretism”. Cf. Peter Burke, Cultural Hybridity, Cambridge
– Malden, MA: Polity Press 2009.
29 For a more detailed discussion see the section “The origins of the Roman cult of
Mithras: A critical discussion” below.
30 Robert Turcan, Mithra et le mithraicisme, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 21993, 19-29.
31 Ernest Will, “Origine et nature du mithriacisme”, in: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin
(ed.), Études Mithriaques: Actes du 2e Congrès international, Téhéran, du 1er au 8
septembre 1975, Téhéran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi 1978, 527-536.
32 C. Colpe, “Mithra-Verehrung…”, 390-394.
33 Elmar Schwertheim, “Mithras: Seine Denkmäler und sein Kult”, Antike Welt 10, 1979,
1-76: 13-29.
34 Mary Boyce – Frantz Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism III: Zoroastrianism under
Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden: E. J. Brill 1991, 468-490.
35 Richard L. Gordon, “The Date and Significance of CIMRM 593 (British Museum,
Townley Collection)”, Journal of Mithraic Studies 2, 1978, 148-174; id., “Persei sub
rupibus antri: Überlegungen zur Entstehung der Mithrasmysterien”, in: Mojca Vomer-
-Gojkovič (ed.), Ptuj v rimskem cesarstvu: Mitraizem in njegova doba: Mednarodno
znanstveno srečanje, Ptuj, 11.-15. oktober 1999 / Ptuj im römischen Reich: Mithraskult
und seine Zeit: Akten des internationalen Symposion Ptuj, 11.-15. Okt. 1999,
(Archeologia Poetoviensis 2), Ptuj: Pokrajinski Muzej Ptuj 2001, 289-301.
36 S. Wikander, “Études sur les mystères de Mithra I…”, 41-46.
73 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
Crimean Peninsula, which was regarded as the cradle of the cult by the
Swedish scholar Per Beskow.37
From the 1980s, a new type of scenario began to appear. This scenario
can be seen as a more radical departure from the traditional versions of the
Cumontian transformation model. In these scenarios, the Roman Cult of
Mithras is not conceptualized as a product of long-lasting and spontaneous
transformation, but as the consequence of a short and carefully planned
invention by an unknown individual or a narrow group of founders. The
proponents of this scenario very often proceed from an older hypothesis,
which was first presented by Martin P. Nilsson, a Swedish expert on Greek
religions. Nilsson saw the Roman cult of Mithras as the creation of an
unknown religious “genius”.38 The first scholar who meticulously ex-
plored this hypothesis was the German classicist Reinhold Merkelbach,39
who was later followed by Manfred Clauss, a German professor of ancient
history.40 Clauss is probably the most eloquent propagator of this scenario
in contemporary Mithraic studies. According to these authors, the Roman
cult of Mithras originated either in Rome or Ostia and diffused at a later
stage from Italy into other, more distant, Roman provinces. This scenario
was or is also endorsed, to a certain extent, by the late Maarten J. Ver
maseren,41 Wolfgang Liebeschuetz,42 and Bruno Jacobs.43 The hypotheti-
cal number of suggested borrowings taken over from authentic Persian
37 Per Beskow, “The Routes of Early Mithraism”, in: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin (ed.),
Études Mithriaques: Actes du 2e Congrès international, Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre
1975, Téhéran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi 1978, 7-18.
38 Martin P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion II, München: C. H. Beck
2
1961, 675-676.
39 Reinhold Merkelbach, Mithras, Königstein im Taunus: Anton Hain 1984, 75-77, 160-
161.
40 Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press 2000, 7-8; cf. also id., Cultores Mithrae…, 253-255; id.,
Mithras: Kult und Mysterium, Darmstadt – Mainz: Philipp von Zabern 2012, 14-18.
41 Maarten J. Vermaseren, “Mithras in der Römerzeit”, in: id. (ed.), Die orientalische
Religionen im Römerreich, (ÉPRO 93), Leiden: E. J. Brill 1981, 96-120: 96-97.
42 Wolfgang Liebeschuetz, “The Expansion of Mithraism among the Religious Cults of
the Second Century”, in: John Hinnells (ed.), Studies in Mithraism: Papers Associated
with the Mithraic Panel Organized on the Occasion of the XVIth Congress of the
International Association for the History of Religions, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider
1994, 195-216: 199-200.
43 Bruno Jacobs, Die Herkunft und Entstehung der römischen Mithrasmysterien:
Überlegungen zur Rolle des Stifters und zu den astronomischen Hintergründen der
Kultlegende, (Xenia: Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 43),
Konstanz: Universitätverlag Konstanz 1999, 33-36.
74 Aleš Chalupa
Syria and dated before the 1st century CE is excluded from further consid-
eration, notwithstanding the fact that some scholars saw it as proof of the
existence of the Mithraic Mysteries in the Achaemenid Empire or in the
Hellenistic period. In this regard, a hypothetical proto-tauroctony from
Uruk-Warka,54 a relief from Hatra,55 an inscription from Faraša,56 or pur-
ported mithraea from Takht-e-Solaiman,57 Arsameia,58 or Pergamon59 can
be mentioned as examples of this type of evidence. These monuments
represent an obvious discontinuity from the later form of Mithras worship
known from the Roman Empire, and their value in the quest for the origins
of the Roman cult of Mithras was thus, correctly in my opinion, assessed
as largely irrelevant.60 What these monuments attest, at best, is the exist-
ence of some disparate elements, which may also be found later in the
Roman cult of Mithras, but lacking the structural form typical for Mithras
worship in the Roman Empire.
If we adopt both abovementioned theoretical assumptions, the earliest
phase of the Roman cult of Mithras, when this cult slowly becomes recog-
A) Datable Mithraea
61 The only possible exception could be the first mithraeum from Dülük in Turkey and its
proposed dating, which is discussed in greater detail below at p. 80.
62 TMMM II, no. 253 [pp. 372-373] = CIMRM 1117 = Ingeborg Huld-Zetsche, Mithras in
Nida-Heddernheim: Gesamtkatalog, (Archäologische Reihe 6), Frankfurt am Main:
Museum für Vor- und Frügesichte Frankfurt am Main 1986, 26-39 = Elmar
Schwertheim, Die Denkmäler orientalischer Gottheiten im römischen Deutschland
(mit Ausnahme der egyptischen Gottheiten), (ÉPRO 40), Leiden: E. J. Brill 1974, no.
61 [pp. 79-87].
63 I. Huld-Zetsche, Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, 36-39.
64 Only a few shards of pottery actually come from this period; the largest portion is
dated somewhat later, between the years 130-150 and 180-220 CE, see I. Huld-Zetche,
Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, 33-36. The possibility that these shards are in reality
contamination from a different archaeological context cannot be entirely excluded, see
Richard L. Gordon, “The Roman Army and the Cult of Mithras: A Critical View”, in:
Catherine Wolff – Yann Le Bohac (eds.), L’armée romaine et la religion sous le Haut-
-Empire romain: Actes du quatrième Congrès de Lyon (26-28 octobre 2006), Lyon: De
Boccard 2009, 379-450: 398, n. 98.
65 Walter Joachim, “Ein römisches Mithräum mit römischen und alamannischen
Siedlungsresten in Güglingen, Kreis Heilbronn”, Archäologische Ausgrabungen in
Baden-Württemberg, 1999, Stuttgart: Theiss 2000, 139-143.
78 Aleš Chalupa
66 Klaus Körtum – Andrea Neth, “Markt und Mithras: Neues vom römischen vicus in
Güglingen, Kreis Heilbronn”, Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg
2003, Stuttgart: Theiss 2004, 113-117.
67 A publication giving detailed information about this mithraeum, all its finds, and the
circumstances of its discovery is Ingeborg Huld-Zetsche, Der Mithraskult in Mainz und
das Mithräum am Ballplatz, (Mainzer archäologische Schriften 7), Mainz: Eigenverlag
der Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe, Direktion Archäologie 2008.
68 Heinz G. Horn, “Das Mainzer Mithrasgefäß”, Mainzer Archäologische Zeitschrift 1,
1994, 21-66; Reinhold Merkelbach, “Das Mainzer Mithrasgefäß”, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 108, 1995, 1-6; R. Beck, “Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, and
Initiation…”, 145-180; Ingeborg Huld-Zetsche, “Der Mainzer Krater mit den sieben
Figuren”, in: Marleen Martens – Guy de Boe (eds.), Roman Mithraism: The Evidence
of the Small Finds, Brussel: Museum Het Toreke 2004, 213-227; ead., Der Mithraskult
in Mainz…, 99-108.
69 I. Huld-Zetsche, Der Mithraskult in Mainz…, 12-14. The above-mentioned wine cra-
ter, belonging among so-called “Schlangengefäße” (vessels decorated with a snake
motif), is then dated into the period 120-140 CE.
70 In older literature, the existence of this mithraeum is related to the Roman settlement
of Pons Aeni. Recent topographical and toponymical research of this region has prov-
en, however, that this particular mithraeum was rather situated at the site of a Roman
settlement (vicus) named in ancient sources as Ad Enum. For more detailed informa-
tion, see Bernd Steidl, “Stationen an der Brücke: Pons Aeni und Ad Enum am Inn-
Übergang der Staatsstraße Augusta Vindelicum-Iuvavum”, in: Gerald Grabherr (ed.),
Conquiescamus! Longum iter fecimus: Römische Raststationem und Straßeninfra
struktur in Ostalpenraum: Akten des Kolloquiums zur Forschungslage zu Römischen
Straßenstationen, Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press 2010, 71-110: 93.
79 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
71 Jochen Garbsch, “Das Mithräum von Pons Aeni”, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 50,
1985, 355-462: 428-435.
72 Bernd Steidl, “Neues zu den Inschriften aus dem Mithraeum von Mühltal am Inn: Pons
Aeni, Ad Enum und die statio Ennensis des publicum portorium Illyrici”, Bayerische
Vorgeschichtsblätter 73, 2008, 53-85: 82.
73 B. Steidl, “Neues zu den Inschriften…”, 77; id., “Stationen an der Brücke…”, 94.
74 Lewis M. Hopfe – Gary Lease, “The Caesarea Mithraeum: A Preliminary Report”,
Biblical Archaeologist 38, 1975, 1-10; Robert J. Bull, “The Mithraeum at Caesarea
Maritima”, in: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin (ed.), Études Mithriaques: Actes du 2e
Congrès International, Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975, Téhéran: Bibliothèque
Pahlavi 1978, 75-90; Lewis M. Hopfe, “Mithraism in Syria”, ANRW II.18.4, 1990,
2214-2235: 2228-2230.
75 For more detailed information see Jeffrey A. Blakely et al., Caesarea Maritima: The
Pottery and Dating of Vault 1: Horreum, Mithraeum, and Later Uses, (Joint Expedition
to Caesarea Maritima, IV, 1987), Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press 1987, 62, 103;
Jeffrey A. Blakely, “Ceramics and Commerce: Amphorae from Caesarea Maritima”,
Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 271, 1988, 31-50: 35; R. Jackson
Painter, “The Origins and Social Context of Mithraism at Caesarea Maritima”, in:
Terence L. Donaldson (ed.), Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in
Caesarea Maritima, Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press 2000, 205-225: 206-
207.
80 Aleš Chalupa
79 This mithraeum is only indirectly attested and its existence is deduced from the discov-
ery of a large number of Mithraic monuments, see Antonio García y Bellido, Les reli
gions orientales dans l’Espagne romaine, (ÉPRO 5), Leiden: E. J. Brill 1967, 26-33,
no. 1-13; cf. also CIMRM 772-797.
80 Teresa Barrientos Vera, “Nuevos datos para el estudio de las religiones orientales en
Occidente: Un espacio de culto mitraico en la zona Sur de Mérida”, Memoria 5:
Excavaciones arqueológicas en Mérida, 1999, 357-381: 367-377.
81 Jaime Alvar – Richard L. Gordon – Celso Rodríguez, “The Mithraeum at Lugo (Lucus
Augusti) and Its Connection with Legio II Gemina”, Journal of Roman Archaeology
19, 2006, 266-277: 267 and n. 4.
82 About the mithraeum I in Nida-Heddernheim see CIMRM 1082 = I. Huld-Zetsche,
Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, 17-21 = E. Schwertheim, Die Denkmäler…, no. 59
[pp. 66-77].
83 CIMRM 1091-1092 = I. Huld-Zetsche, Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, 55, no. 8 =
CIL XIII, 7365 [vol. 4, p. 125] = EDCS-11001461 = HD041974 = E. Schwertheim, Die
Denkmäler…, no. 59i [pp. 71-72].
84 Vermaseren’s reading in CIMRM II (p. 68) and Schwertheim’s reading (Die
Denkmäler…, no. 59i [pp. 71-72]) are given in a slightly different form to the one
published in Ingeborg Huld-Zetsche. Vermaseren and Schwertheim place after alae I
Fla(viae) an additional word milli(ariae). Vermaseren wrongly reads the first line as
82 Aleš Chalupa
Dedicated to Fortuna. Tacitus, a cavalryman of the first ala Flavia of the squadron of
Claudius Atticus, has fulfilled his vow, willingly and gladly, as he should.
Fortun(ae) sacrum (according to photos of this monument, each of these words occur
in a separate line). CIL and HD then complete the name of the dedicator as Tacilus. On
the basis of existing photo documentation, I endorse the reading proposed by Ingeborg
Huld-Zetche.
85 For more information on this iconographic motif generally, see M. Clauss, The Roman
Cult of Mithras…, 77-78. For other exemplars of this motif, see e.g. CIMRM 1495
(Poetovio/Ptuj), CIMRM 1497 (Poetovio/Ptuj), CIMRM 1811 (Sárkezi), CIMRM 1900
(Skelani) etc.
86 I. Huld-Zetsche, Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, 21. E. Schwertheim, Die Denk
mäler…, no. 59i (p. 72), then determines as the terminus ante quem the year 122 CE.
In both cases, however, the dating belongs to the earliest period of the existence of the
Roman cult of Mithras.
87 See E. Schwertheim, Die Denkmäler…, 271; M. Clauss, Cultores Mithrae…, 116, n.
118.
88 CIMRM 1098 = E. Schwertheim, Die Denkmäler…, no. 59i (p. 73) = I. Huld-Zetsche,
Mithras in Nida-Heddernheim…, no. 9 (p. 56) = CIL XIII, 7362 [vol. 4, p. 125] =
EDCS-11001458 = HD059854.
83 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
The terminus ante quem for the dedication of this inscription is again
the year 110 CE, since the 32nd cohort of Roman citizens was stationed at
Nida from 90 until 110 CE.89 However, the relevance of this inscription
has recently been questioned by Richard L. Gordon. Gordon claims that
there are some arguments speaking against this early dating: (1) the formu-
lation deo plus the name of a deity is otherwise unattested in Germania
until the year 196 CE;90 (2) the presence of the soldiers from the 32nd co-
hort in Nida is, in a few cases, demonstrated well after 110 CE;91 (3) all
other finds from the mithraeum I are late.92 Nevertheless, Gordon allows
for the possibility that the mithraeum I and all the monuments it contained,
with the exception of this altar, were destroyed during the invasion of
Germanic Chatti in the third quarter of the 2nd century CE, which devas-
tated many regions in Germania Superior. The rescued altar could subse-
quently have been piously placed inside a newly reconstructed Mithraic
temple.93 Thus, in many regards, the dating of the inscription remains
contentious.
ity of Bad Deutsch Altenburg.94 The inscription95 is five lines long (letter
height 0.03-0.045 m) and reads:
Invicto Mit(h)r{h}(a)e (sic!) / C. Sacidius Ba/rbarus [(centurio)] leg(ionis) / XV
Apol[linar(is)] / ex voto [[[…]]] / [[[……]]] / [[[……]]]
lower parts broken off.99 Next to the inscription, on the right side, is an
image of Cautes, one of the Mithraic torchbearers, holding in his right
hand a raised torch and in his left hand a cock, with its head held down-
wards. On the left side next to the inscription, we find an image of
Cautopates, the second of the two Mithraic torchbearers, holding again a
cock in his left head, but this time with its head held upwards. In his right
hand he holds a lowered torch. A reading of the originally eight-line-long
inscription (letter height 0.025-0.035 m), from which only four lines are
preserved, can be reconstructed as:100
[Invicto] / deo / Melichrysus / P(ubli) Caragoni / Philopalaestri [cond(uctoris) pu
bl(ici) por(torii)] / [ripae Thraciae] / [ser(vus) vil(icus) posuit]
99 CIMRM 2268.
100 CIMRM 2269 = IGLNovae, no. 35 = ILBulg, no. 289 = PLINovae, p. 122 = AE 1940,
no. 100 = HD020910 = EDCS-13301380. The reading of the second line in CIMRM
(leo) is in all probability erroneous. In transcription I endorse the reconstructed reading
according to AE 1940, no. 100 and databases EDCS and HD.
101 According to R. Merkelbach (Mithras…, 148), this titulature thus does not reflect
contemporary practice since at the time when the inscription was made the collection
of custom fees was the responsibility of state officials and not private tenants.
102 Inscriptionae Scythiae Minoris 1.67.68 = AE 1919, no. 10, line 67 = HD044434.
103 CIL III, 6128 (p. 2316,45) = CIL III, 7425 = ILBulg, no. 32 = CIMRM 2250 = AE 1900,
no. 15 = TMMM II, no. 225 = HD028111 = EDCS-27800906. – Vermaseren proposed
the reading f(idelis), which according to him refers to the person of the Mithraic Father
(“faithful Father of the sacred ceremonies”). Epigraphical databases EDCS and DH
propose the reading F(elix), referring to the name of the legio IV. In this article, I fol-
low the latter reading.
86 Aleš Chalupa
Titus Tettius Plotus, a veteran of the legio IV Flavia Felix, Father of the sacred cere-
monies of the Unconquered God, has fulfilled his vow, willingly, as he should.
The person who dedicated this altar, Titus Tettius Plotus, was a veteran
of the legio IV which was, according to some sources,104 relocated to the
region near Oescus by the emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117 CE). If this as-
sumption is correct,105 the inscription itself was, in all probability, made
briefly after 110 CE. Richard Gordon, however, has expressed doubts
about this early date because the inscription contains the title pater sacro
rum, which is otherwise known only from the 3rd century CE.106 He also
raises the possibility that Titus Tettius Plotus returned to Oescus much
later after 110 CE from a different place, for example Singidunum (mod-
ern Beograd in Serbia), which served, from the first quarter of the 2nd
century CE, as the winter station of the legio IV.107 The early dating is thus
not absolutely certain and remains open to possible reassessment.
13) Rome
An altar,108 found in Rome near the Esquiline Hill, bears a nine-line-
long bilingual inscription in Latin and Greek.109 It reads:
Soli / Invicto Mithrae / T(itus) Flavius Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Hyginus / Ephebianus /
d(onum) d(edit) // Hēliōi Mithrai / T(itus) Phlauios Hygios / dia Lolliou Roufou /
patros idiou.
Titus Flavius Hyginus Ephebianus, freedman of the emperor, dedicated to the Sun
Unconquered Mithras. Titus Flavius Hyginus, through Lollius Rufus, Father110 of his
(mithraeum, dedicated) to Sun Mithras.
104 See Emil Ritterling, “Legio”, RE 12, 1925, 1211-1829: 1287 and 1543.
105 Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg (HD028111) dates the inscription in 151-200
CE, but without any specific explanation.
106 See R. L. Gordon, “The Roman Army and the Cult of Mithras…”, 393 and n. 77.
107 Ibid., 393.
108 Information about the circumstances of the altar’s discovery is very scanty, see TMMM
II, no. 66 (“Ara reperta in Esquiliis ad aedem DD. Petri et Marcellini”), and is repeated
without any addition by Vermaseren in CIMRM 362.
109 CIL VI, 732 (p. 3006) = CIG 6011 = IGRRP I, no. 77 = IGUR I, no. 179 = CIMRM
362.
110 The majority of interpreters think that the phrase patros idiou does not refer to
Ephebianus’ biological father, but to a leader of the community to which this imperial
freedman belonged, see R. L. Gordon, “The Date and Significance…”, 153.
87 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
14) Rome
This inscription is carved out in a statue portraying Mithras slaying a
bull – more specifically, on the front side of a pedestal and on the rear side
of the bull statue.112 Although the sculpture group and inscription origi-
nate from Rome, they are presently kept at the British Museum in London.
The inscription113 reads:
Alcimus Ti(beri) Cl(audi) Liviani ser(vus) vi[l]ic(us) S(oli) M(ithrae) v(otum) s(olvit)
d(onum) d(edit).
Alcimus, a slave and housekeeper of Tiberius Claudius Livinanus, has fulfilled his
vow and given as a present to Sol Mithras.
111 For a detailed explanation of this dating, see R. L. Gordon, “The Date and
Significance…”, 151-153.
112 CIMRM 593. This tauroctony is remarkable for some details which may indicate that
this particular exemplar was produced in the early phase of the cult’s existence when
the iconographic rules were still fluid and left room for individual “experimentation”.
These details include wheat ears sprouting directly from the wound caused by Mithras’
dagger instead of the tip of the bull’s tail, or the positioning of both torchbearers on the
left side of a sculpture group, with one possibly supporting (the monument is unfortu-
nately damaged in this place) the tail of the dying animal.
113 CIL VI, 718 (p. 3006, p. 3757) = CIL VI, 30818 = ILS, no. 4199 = CIMRM 594 =
CIMRM II, p. 31.
114 See Ronald Syme, “Guard Prefects of Trajan and Hadrian”, Journal of Roman Studies
80, 1980, 64-80: 66-67.
115 About the dating of this inscription, see R. L. Gordon, “The Date and Significance…”,
154-157. Cf. also R. Merkelbach, Mithras…, 147-148 and n. 3-2; M. Clauss, Cultores
Mithrae…, 20 and n. 54, 253-254; id., Mithras: Kult und Mysterium…, 28.
88 Aleš Chalupa
Dedicated to Sol Mithras by Midon, son of Solon, in the year 162 of our era.
If we accept that the year 162 mentioned in the inscription refers to the
Sullan era, we can establish the year 77-78 CE as the year of its dedica-
tion.118 Although we cannot securely exclude the possibility that this
monument reflects some “traditional” form of Mithras worship, it would
be methodologically faulty to dismiss it apriori from further consideration.
Its dedication to Sol Mithras provides an interesting parallel with the
Ephebianus’ inscription from Rome (no. 13 above) and therefore raises the
possibility that this monument and inscription already belong to the
Roman version of the Mithras cult.
116 CIMRM 23 = Franz Cumont, “Mithra en Asie Mineure”, in: W. M. Calder – J. Keil
(eds.), Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckley, Manchester: Manchester
University Press 1939, 67-76: 69 = Barbara Levick et al. (eds.), Monumenta Asiae
Minoris Antiqua X, (Journal of Roman Studies Monographs 7), London: Society for
the Promotion of Roman Studies 1993, 449.
117 Vermaseren in CIMRM 23, p. 51, speaks about Mithras with a Phrygian cap; this iden-
tification is, however, disputed as erroneous by B. Levick et al. (eds.), Monumenta…,
449.
118 See F. Cumont, “Mithra en Asie Mineure…”, 69; R. L. Gordon, “Who Worshipped
Mithras?…”, 470 and n. 56.
89 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
… seu te roseum Titana uocari / gentis Achaemeniae ritu, seu praestat Osirim / fru
giferum, seu Persei sub rupibus antri / indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram.
… whether ’tis right to call thee rosy Titan, in the fashion of the Achaemenian race,
or Osiris bringer of the harvest, or Mithras, that beneath the rocky Persian cave strains
at the reluctant-following horns.119
The whole epos was completed in 92 CE at the latest; the first book
must thus have been compiled much earlier, probably as early as the start
of the 80s of the 1st century CE.120 It is possible that this passage alludes
either to the tauroctony,121 or to an iconographic motif portraying Mithras
dragging a bull by his horns to a cave where the beast is subsequently
slain.122 If this hypothesis is correct, the poem testifies that the Roman cult
of Mithras was already known to members of the Roman aristocracy in the
reign of the Flavian dynasty.123
tiacum Superior
4 Pfaffenhoffen Ad Enum Noricum mithraeum before 100 CE dubious confirmed
am Inn
5 Sdot Yam Caesarea Judaea mithraeum about 80 CE confirmed confirmed
Maritima
6 Dülük Dolichos Syria mithraeum before 25 CE dubious confirmed
7 Mérida Emerita Lusitania mithraeum before 100 CE dubious confirmed
Augusta
8 Heddernheim Nida Germania inscription on an altar before 110 CE confirmed uncertain
Superior
9 Heddernheim Nida Germania inscription on an altar before 110 CE probable confirmed
Superior
10 Bad Deutsch Carnuntum Pannonia inscription on an altar before 114 CE confirmed confirmed
Altenburg Superior
11 Svištov Novae Moesia Inferior inscription on a monument about 100 CE confirmed confirmed
12 Guljanci Oescus Moesia Inferior inscription on an altar about 100 CE probable confirmed
13 Roma Roma Roma inscription on an altar 68-117 CE confirmed confirmed
14 Roma Roma Roma inscription on a tauroctony 101-120 CE confirmed confirmed
15 Savçilar Aezanitis Phrygia insription on a base 77/78 CE probable uncertain
tures of the Roman Empire, namely its military roads and trade routes.
This does not, in itself, substantiate the claim that the Roman cult of
Mithras originated in Roman military circles or is to be seen, as it is often
done, as a sort of a military cult.125 The decisive impact of Roman military
infrastructure on the early diffusion of the Roman cult of Mithras cannot,
however, be neglected.126 Even here, the picture remains much more com-
plex than Cumont and his followers – who never stopped adhering to the
scenario of the cult diffusing westward from the Eastern provinces –
thought.127 Some of the oldest Mithraic artefacts instead support the idea
that Roman soldiers first encountered the cult in the Danubian and Rhinean
provinces and not in the East.128
These complications compelled some scholars to abandon the search for
a specific geographical location where the Roman cult of Mithras was sup-
posed to have originated and to focus their attention on the identification
of a particular founding group whose adventures, mobility, and/or social
status might have facilitated the cult’s rapid and geographically impressive
spread.129 In addition, the maintenance of a sharp distinction between
transformation and invention may be detrimental in this regard, since, in
the case of the genesis of such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as
the Roman cult of Mithras, both scenarios most likely coexisted; the time
of origination could thus partially overlap with the time of dispersion.130
Scenarios of this kind (i.e. those focusing on the identification of a pro-
spective founding group), however, remain quite rare. The one potential
founding group, which has been discussed in Mithraic scholarship for a
long time, is the Cilician pirates mentioned by the Greek philosopher and
historian Plutarch.131 These pirates, captured during Pompey’s campaign
against them in 67 BCE, were, according to some ancient sources, relo-
cated to – in addition to other places – Southern Italy, and, specifically,
125 For a thorough-going critique of the attitude seeing in the Roman cult of Mithras a
typical “military cult”, see R. L. Gordon, “The Roman Army and the Cult of
Mithras…”.
126 C. Witschel, “Die Ursprünge des Mithras-Kults…”, 209-210.
127 Srov. F. Cumont, Les mystères de Mithra…, 39-63.
128 For the first outspoken critique of Cumont’s theory of the transmission of the Roman
cult of Mithras westward through Roman soldiers of “Oriental” extraction, see Charles
M. Daniels, “The Role of the Roman Army in the Spread and Practice of Mithraism”,
in: John R. Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies II, Manchester: Manchester University
Press 1975, 249-274.
129 E.g. R. Beck, “The Mysteries of Mithras…”, 119.
130 R. Beck, “The Mysteries of Mithras…”, 122: “Development and transmission should
be seen as overlapping, not rigidly sequential, phases: certain of the essentials of the
Mysteries will have been in place prior to their transmission, but they were developed
into their familiar forms in and through the process of transmission itself.”
131 Plutarch, Vita Pompeii 24-25.
93 The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras…
Campania.132 Plutarch informs us, too, that these pirates celebrated some
mysteries dedicated to Mithras which purportedly continued to be per-
formed until his times. Some scholars accept the credibility of Plutarch’s
account and see the Cilician pirates as a social group which could be re-
sponsible for the transmission of the Mithras cult into Italy, from where it
subsequently permeated to other parts of the Roman Empire. Their contri-
bution is seen as essential, for example, by Ernest Will,133 Elmar
Schwertheim,134 and David Ulansey.135 This scenario, however, incurs
some difficulties which render its historical relevance problematic. Even if
we leave aside the question of whether Plutarch’s identification of the
“Mysteries of Mithras” known in his times with the mysteries of the
Cilician pirates is correct,136 it remains a fact that their hypothetical cult,
which supposedly later transformed into the Roman cult of Mithras, left no
archaeologically visible traces for approximately 150 years.
Alternative hypotheses focusing on the identification of a prospective
group of founders were introduced by David Ulansey, Per Beskow, and
Roger Beck. Ulansey’s scenario can be seen as highly speculative and
historically implausible, because the existence of the group whose contri-
bution to the origins of the Roman cult of Mithras he considers as funda-
mental (stoic philosophers from Tarsus who recognized the religious value
and potential of Hipparchus’ discovery of the precession of equinoxes)
remains purely hypothetical and unattested in historical sources.137
According to Per Beskow, the Roman cult of Mithras originated in the 1st
century CE in the Bosporan kingdom (in the region around the Crimean
Peninsula) in the milieu of local voluntary associations. These Bosporan
synodoi and thyasoi had some interesting characteristics which are consist-
ent with the known features of the Roman cult of Mithras; their member-
ship was exclusively male138 and recruited from the military stratum of
132 Servius, Commentarium ad Georgicam IV.127 (Georgius Thilo [ed.], Servii Grammatici
qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarii, Leipzig: Teubner 1887,
329-330).
133 E. Will, “Origine et nature du mithriacisme…”, 527.
134 E. Schwertheim, “Mithras: Seine Denkmäler und sein Kult…”, 19.
135 D. Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries…, 40-41.
136 This question is discussed in greater detail e.g. by Eric D. Francis, “Plutarch’s Mithraic
Pirates”, in: John Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies I, Manchester: Manchester University
Press 1975, 207-210; Robert Turcan, Mithras Platonicus: Recherches sur l’hellénisa
tion philosophique de Mithra, (ÉPRO 47), Leiden: E. J. Brill 1975, 1-13; Claudio
Rubino, “Pompeyo Magno, los piratas cilicios y la introducción del Mitraísmo en el
Impero romano según Plutarco”, Latomus 65, 2006, 915-927.
137 For a very detailed and scorching criticism of Ulansey’s historical method and mani-
pulation of sources, see M. Clauss, “Mithras und die Präzession…”.
138 The Roman cult of Mithras also excluded women and initiated only males, see Aleš
Chalupa, “Hyenas or Lionesses? Mithraism and Women in the Religious World of the
94 Aleš Chalupa
the civil wars of 68-70 CE, members of the Roman aristocracy.145 The
genesis of the Roman cult of Mithras thus intersects with the history of one
particular social group which had strong ties to the Persian religious tradi-
tion, is attested in our historical sources, and about whose fate and actions
in the 1st century CE we have sufficiently detailed information. However,
this said, it remains true that even this sophisticated scenario cannot be
directly corroborated by our historical sources, and must remain in the
form of a hypothesis: historically credible, but a hypothesis nonetheless.
Conclusion
145 Ibid., 121-122. For more extensive information on the history of the Commagenian
Kingdom, see Richard D. Sullivan, “The Dynasty of Commagene”, ANRW II.8, 1977,
732-798.
96 Aleš Chalupa
SUMMARY
The Origins of the Roman Cult of Mithras in the Light of New Evidence and
Interpretations: The Current State of Affairs
This article deals with the still unresolved question of the origins of the Roman cult of
Mithras. After a brief history of the scholarship dealing with this topic, individual mithraea,
inscriptions, and passages in literary texts which have been dated to the earliest period of the
cult’s existence are evaluated. On the basis of this re-evaluation, some provisional conclu
sions concerning the question of Mithraic origins are made, namely that (1) the earliest
evidence comes from the period 75-125 CE but remains, until the second half of the 2nd
century CE, relatively negligible; (2) the geographical distribution of early evidence does
not allow for a clear identification of the geographical location from which the cult started
to spread, which suggests that (3) the cult made effective use of Roman military infrastructu-
re and trade routes and (4) was transmitted, at least initially, due to the high mobility of the
first propagators. However, it must be acknowledged that, at present, we can neither con
clusively identify its place of origin nor the people who initiated the cult. In addition it is
impossible to describe the specific historical circumstances in which these formative proce-
sses should be placed.
Keywords: Roman cult of Mithras; origins of the Roman cult of Mithras; cultural hybridity;
invention of new religious cults; cultural transmission; Franz Cumont; Roger Beck; Per
Beskow; Kingdom of Commagene.